Bush's budget plan less for domestic more for war. Whats your opinion on this?

Question

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush said on Saturday his upcoming budget proposal would emphasize restraint on domestic spending while making defense and war costs for
Iraq and
Afghanistan the top priority.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Cutting the deficit during a time of war requires us to restrain spending in other areas," Bush said in his weekly radio address.......Bush will propose a 1 percent increase in spending outside defense for fiscal 2008, according to The Washington Post. That would amount to a decrease in programs after accounting for inflation, which is running at about 2.5 percent.

The Post also said the president would seek a 10 percent increase in the regular
Pentagon budget to $481 billion.

FINANCING IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN WARS

An administration official has said the president will request a total of $245 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through late 2008.

Answer 1

I know patriotic families like yours that are willing to send your sons and daughters to the hell hole that is Iraq are sick to death of this buffoon in the White House. How can this president treat the American people with such disdain? He is without credibilty and now shamelessly flaunts his true colors without remorse.

It is time the Congress stood up and be counted or they have lost a vote in '08.

Answer 2

What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals -- ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B [Bush Sr, Scrowcroft, Baker]. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do.

We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself.

He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too.

Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile -- hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain).

The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, see Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, [excerpt below].

Maybe the bums planned this mess for their own profit, or maybe they planned to profit without mess; maybe some of them regret what they have wrought. However, they all share the blame for whatever he does next.

Answer 3

You are a little mistaken, he increased spending for defense, and decreased domestic programs, this is typical of all conservative presidents. Not to mention we are in a couple of conflicts, so I have no problem with this, and if the majority of the country does, than they would not have made three of the last four president's conservatives. Well Bush 41 was a moderate.

Answer 4

If george can win in Iraq, it boost the chances for the GOP, but it comes at severe risks and costs

Answer 5

I think our schools need serious attention. I think that $716 billion on war and the war on terror combined is too much.

Answer 6

I think Bush is going to be VERY disappointed in the amount of money he's going to be allotted,(congressional purse strings,for the war).........really,really disappointed..

Answer 7

It sounds like we're in for more of the same old s**t. It also serves as further proof of the fact that Bush has never given a rat's a** about the American people.

Answer 8

I wonder if he has a sign in the oval office reading; compassionate conservative at work. My opinion, low.